Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

Capitalization of "president"

"The incident has been regarded as the most significant security failure by the Secret Service since the attempted assassination of president Ronald Reagan in 1981."

In this sentence, should "president" be capitalized? So far, a very brief discussion has been unable to provide an answer to this question, so I am raising this issue at this page. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 15:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Should be capitalized. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 15:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLES:

When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII.

—Bagumba (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at that thread, for an added twist, it would be "US president Ronald Reagan", as "US president" is a modified title. —Bagumba (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with everything so far In "President Ronald Reagan " it is part of his name. In "US president Ronald Reagan" it is not. But if it were written "President of the USA Ronald Reagan" that would be correct. It would not be part of Reagan's name but it is a specific office which is a name itself. Spinney Hill (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• President, like other titles, should only be capitalized immediately before someone's name. In all other instances, it should be lowercase (recognizing there could be limited exceptions). --Enos733 (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think MoS is as simple as Chris the speller puts it . It says :

  Capitals should be used "When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description:"

  I don't think it matters whether this is in the body of the article or in the info box. Consider the following ststements:

  Alfred was not a king of England.

  Alfred was King of Wessex.

  Athelstan was an English king and later became King of the English.

  Joe Biden is President of the United States

  Abraham Lincoln was a president of the United States

  All these appear to me to be correct. Spinney Hill (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Knighthoods, lordships, and similar honorific titles

What about cases where a person holding one of the above titles is mentionedn in an article, but is not the subject of the article themselves??

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC))

MOS:SIR may have the information you're looking for. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization in infoboxes

A footnote throughout the MOS states "Wikipedia uses sentence case for sentences, article titles, section titles, table headers, image captions, list entries (in most cases), and entries in infoboxes and similar templates, among other things. Any instructions in MoS about the start of a sentence apply to items using sentence case.". This footnote is mentioned once in the relevant guideline here, MOS:JOBTITLES. However, as we see in most if not all infoboxes for politicians, sentence case is not applied to the offices they've held (the two articles primarily in question being Steve Beshear and Janet Mills, though other examples of this include Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Kathy Hochul, Glenn Youngkin, etc, etc, etc).

So the question to which I seek the comments of other editors would be whether or not these titles should be capitalized (eg. "75th Governor of Maine", "45th President of the United States", etc.)? Or whether they fall under the "descriptions" side of JOBTITLES or the "titles" side of JOBTITLES? estar8806 (talk) ★ 04:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: @Chris the speller estar8806 (talk) ★ 04:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Quick correction to my opening statement: the aforementioned footnote is not once mentioned in JOBTITLES, but rather in MOS:PEOPLETITLES as a note on hyphenated/unhyphenated titles. estar8806 (talk) ★ 04:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

These look like proper names to me. Thus President of the United States, King of the Belgians, Sultan of Turkey, Lord Mayor of Sheffield, Chief of the Imperial General Staff etc, Spinney Hill (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The MoS says to use lower case for "37th president of the United States", and this is from long-standing consensus. This discussion, started by Estar8806, is not to ask if that looks right to all editors, but to determine whether this style also applies to templates such as infobox officeholder. The footnote in the MoS says it does, and nowhere in the MoS is there an exception for infoboxes. I see a lot of overcapitalization in infoboxes (e.g. "Actor, Singer, Playwright, Comedian") that in the body of articles is rare and quickly fixed, but that doesn't mean we should condone or encourage it in infoboxes. Does maintaining two standards, one for running text and one for items in infoboxes, help any readers, or make work easier for editors, or make WP look more professional? I don't see how. Chris the speller ^yack 14:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Not every office is commonly numbered. French presidents and UK prime ministers are examples of this. Does maintaining a separate standard for them versus those which are commonly numbered (like U.S. presidents or state governors) make Wikipedia look more professional? estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

We capitalize in these instances (i.e infoboxes) regardless of a numbering or not. Please let's not change this, thus cause more inconsistencies & possible edit wars. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

If what you do is common practice, shouldn't it be specified somewhere in the MoS? Chris the speller ^yack 16:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

By all means, write it in. Just pointing out, if you started downsizing at bios of (for example) Australian & New Zealand governors-general, prime ministers, etc. You'd likely get reverted by editors who frequent those pages. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I should say what I mean. What I should have said is that if a group of people are propagating a style, shouldn't they be doing it for a good reason instead of for no reason, and isn't the best reason that it is what editors have specified in the MoS after reaching a consensus? Won't people be tempted to use upper case for modified job titles in the body of an article if we have trained them to do so in infoboxes? Wikipedia does not capitalize common nouns in articles, titles, section headings or table headings (except the first word of a sentence), so what's the need for it in infoboxes? I'm not saying we need to change any case of French presidents or "Prime Minister of Australia" unless it is preceded by a modifier, as in "Quentin Elmhurst was a very unpopular prime minister of Australia" or "James Scullin (1930) became the first prime minister of Australia to exercise complete discretion ..." Chris the speller ^yack 22:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

We capitalize in the infoboxes of office holders. Best to leave it that way, rather than stir up a mess. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Please see my edit at "Capitalization of presidents" Spinney Hill (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I have just edited Steve Beshear to use the infobox officeholder template as it was designed, and as editors were instructed. When this is done, "61st" and "Governor of Kentucky" are in two different parameters, and the tools I use to correct capitalization in running text don't see them. This discussion would have been precluded. Chris the speller ^yack 14:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Chris the speller. Where is an appropriate place to ask about the tools that you use to correct capitalization. I’d love to learn from you. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 14:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I have answered on your talk page. Chris the speller ^yack 16:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

can popularity eclipse any other information from lead?

Following a discussion with @Haukurth I would like this guideline to be more clear regarding a specific case that I've noticed to be prominent in leads of popular biographies.

Should a vast amound of prizes on body be able to eclipse any other relevant piece of information on lead?

According to MOS:LEAD the space for "prominent controversies" is guaranteed, and the lead should "cultivates interest in reading on". Looking at the leads from Spielberg, Swift or Blackpink this is far from true. The lead is basically a collection of releases and prizes, accomplishing the role of excluding any potential controversial information from a first read regarding the subject. I would have expected a similar approach regarding politician pages, but the issue is extremelly prominent in the entertainment ones as well. This is in stark contrast to a multi faced developed lead as in the Stanley Kubrick page.

My question is, how can this be by design in an encyclopedia? And if it isn't, shouldn't the Manual of Style appropriatelly put a limit to the amount of lead paragraphs exclusivelly reserved to records and awards? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps it's hard to write and maintain a rounded summary when the subject persists in living and creating - you happen to have contrasted three articles about living, active artists/creators with one dead one. Casting around, I notice the engaging lead of Mick Jagger would serve as an obituary with a few tweaks of tense, but that would be a grim guideline to include in WP:BLP. NebY (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

you surelly have a point about living persons being more difficult to summarize, define and such. But isn't that the whole point of wikipedia, to try to look for consensus for edits? Conceding flat out doesn't seem appropriate to me. Jagger page is also a better exemple as you note. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

What I am noticing is that this issue is presented on body of articles as well. I got an editor telling me that some fully sourced and relevant material should not be added because (not precise quote) "it is not what makes the group notable". Doesn't this transforms BIO pages in promotional tools? Shouldn't this be addressed in the guidelines? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Bdushaw since we are discussing the MOS:CRIMINAL section I would like to know your opinion on this one, if you got the time, as well. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't really say (though for lack of patience I spent little time trying...) but I'll make two points. A gray area not often acknowledged is that editors have a great leeway in selecting and organizing material - that's what writing is about, and good writing necessarily sparks the readers interest, is clear, and quickly states the point. I do object to blinding following whatever guideline. Elsewhere, (Trump's "hush money" case) there was a conflict between popularity and the use of the term "hush money", and accuracy of what the case was actually about (not hush money, but election fraud). There are times when popularity (and sources) ought to be overruled in the interest of better accuracy. This is an encyclopedia where the 2nd interest is paramount. Perhaps all off point, but these thoughts came to mind (since you asked). Bdushaw (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Guidelines should not indeed be something to follow blindly, but for exemple the case you are mentioning is on the opposite side. The Trump lead is almost exclusivelly full of criticism, I was very surprised to not even find a basic phrase that explained how/why he won an election. You were able to go into details of terms to use for criticism, that's great.

In the exemples I am refering to, pages of popular artists (I noted this in Kpop but then discovered that it also applies to Taylor Swift etc) get a lead which is almost fully composed of prizes and records. Almost no analysis, let alone criticism. The reasoning from editors to defend this has been "only notability matters", which basically means that a popular person that has a strong PR team can dilute any info that they don't like. That's what a guideline should make clear is not an desirable writing approach. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

We're just talking here (or rather at least I am...disinterested...). The situation you describes strikes me as relating to what I mentioned above - that gray area of writing that is the author's selection of material and how to present it. You describe what seems to me to be poor writing. Other than to highlight that a biography should perhaps start with interesting text that would capture and maintain the reader's attention. I can't think of guidance that would do away with poor writing, or, rather as you seem to suggest, a writer's invested interest in spinning an article a certain way. Though what you also describe is a conflict of interest - writing by the subject's PR team. That's explicitly a no no. I hope my random comments are worthwhile. Bdushaw (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Surelly it's poor writing, I think that the root of the problem may be on the not sufficient limits given to the "weight" concept itself. No need for a PR team in most situations, fans do the job instead. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Native names

MOS:ETHNICITY specifically calls out not mentioning country of birth in the opening paragraph unless relevant to the subject's notability; my understanding of that is that would extend to not including a native name for someone who doesn't use it professionally (ie. not including a Chinese name for a Canadian author who left China as a kid). In that vein, if you're including a native name, it should be in the infobox and not separate template box below the infobox. Just want a bit more clarification as there has been a bit of back & forth at Xiran Jay Zhao in the edit summaries and I want to confirm I'm not off base in my interpretation of the MOS. (I'll also drop a link to this question over at the article's talk for transparency). Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Criminal acts

I appreciate the recent edit by Bdushaw regarding the Criminal acts section. And I wanted to ask them and other editors about how they feel about my latest addition (in green).

Labels such as "criminal", "convicted felon", "fraudster", and "convicted sex offender" are imprecise, could imply a moral judgement, and their placement in an article's first sentence may give undue weight.

To me this feels like a very important precision. Saying that a label is imprecise is not very clear, and arguably false. A label can be precise in its own way, for exemple being precise in adding a moral tone. I feel that this phrasing makes the whole section more clear and logical. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I came to these issues in a squabble over the use of "fraudster" in the Elizabeth Holmes article. Then I discovered that similar such disputes occurred regularly throughout Wikipedia - countless, endless arguments over labels, most often crime labels. The expense of editor man-hours on these endless, pointless disputes is staggering... I have no desire of engaging in another one! I was a primary editor of the WP:Crime labels essay, I am viewing these issues through the specific prism of a large number of RfC's and their resolution that I've reviewed. That being said, a label IS shorthand for something, hence unavoidably imprecise (indeed your very argument is suggestive of imprecision!). I don't disagree with "moral judgement" but think that more often such labels are used as "name calling", as seems obvious to me in many of these disputes. Though that be the case, I know of no editor who has recognized their advocacy for a label as name calling and admitted as much. There was recently a surprisingly stupid gigantic RfC on whether to label Donald Trump a "convicted felon" for example. These endless discussions occur because it is all imprecise, with people having differing interpretations of meaning and nuance, all inconsistent and conflicting, citing definitions and sources. With all due respect to editors, I have also often detected an element of misogyny in biographies of women.

I don't object to the recent edits, but find the statement "If the crime is not a significant part of the person's notability, it may be undue to mention in the lead at all." unhelpful...what happens when a notable person commits a crime is the press goes nuts, creating all manner of "sources" on the crime. Hence, it becomes notable for being notable (the lead for the article Martha Stewart likely unduly represents her crime, but good luck trying to correct that!). It seems likely that not mentioning the crime in the lead is not often a practical solution. I find I prefer a more explicit, stark style, whereas it seems to me guidance over time becomes fairly muddled from the diverse edits - as mentioned, people see these issues in different and conflicting ways.

This section might benefit from a notice near the top that indeed there have been extensive, exhaustive discussions/RfC's on these issues. To warn editors that there is no need to go through all the arguments again. Editors could benefit from reviewing the numerous past RfC's summarized in the handy table in WP:Crime labels#References. Makes me exhausted just thinking about it. :) Bdushaw (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile, there are labels in lists (e.g., List of fraudsters) which is a whole can of worms. Labeling on steroids; slap a label in bulk on a large number of people, irrespective. Ugh. Bdushaw (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I've made some bold suggested edits (not knowing how else to make such suggestions). Revert or correct as desired! Bdushaw (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

All the edits make sense to me and make the section flows better. I don't have personal experience about misogyny on pages so I can't comment on that.

"name-calling" is to me a specific version of moral judgment, it's probably OK to keep both just for the sake of be clear, since this is indeed a very regular source of edit conflicts. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm neutral on including the "moral judgment" or "name-calling" bit. It makes the section a bit more pointed, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Since reversion or refining was invited, I've removed the warning about the topic being contentious. That goes without saying for really anything in the MoS, and we don't have such a warning on more contentious topics like MOS:GENDERID. As to the scenarios where no mention is appropriate in the lede, they actually happen all the time; they just don't come to mind for most people because, well, by definition this concerns people who aren't strongly associated with their crimes. So I've restored that with a bit more clarification. I think it's important to have at least a few words on this topic, lest this section be incorrectly cited for the proposition that a conviction must be mentioned in the lede. (And believe me, whatever you put in MoS saying people may do something, guaranteed that sooner or later someone will interpret that as a must.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Strangely enough the exemple provided with Letourneau didn't respect the guideline in the following phrases of the lead. It refered to the crime in a general way and avoided being specific. That, among other things, led me to fully rewrite the lead. If the edits stand I will reflect the opening paragraph changes here. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Formatting post-nominals examples

Since MOS:POSTNOM now says (after the 2023 RFC) "post-nominal letters may be included in the main body of the article, but not in the lead sentence of the article", why are the examples in MOS:BIO § Formatting post-nominals formatted with boldface names, as they would appear only in the lead sentence of the article? Can we maybe find some actual article where a post-nominal is properly "included in the main body of the article" but not in the lead, and copy the formatting from there? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Good grief. How did I miss this RfC? This is yet another example of cultural bias on en WP, something which was explicitly not taken into account by the closer. But in answer to your question, it actually now makes it awkward to explain what a post-nominal is when they haven't been introduced in the lead sentence with the name (where they belong, frankly). For example, in the body you might say, "In January 1927, Fooist was made a Companion of the Distinguished Service Order (DSO)." But then why is the (DSO) there? It essentially requires an additional sentence or explanatory footnote like "This award entitled the recipient to place the initialisation DSO after their name, or some similar formulation if it could be written generically to apply to all awards the person received that came with a post-nominal, which would be particularly important in the case of highly decorated Commonwealth generals, for example, who might have six or more postnominals, where you wouldn't want six separate notes. Talk about a solution in search of a problem... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)